This is what happens when mob mentality is stirred up. The wrong people get hurt.

This morning must have been a shock for 27 year old David Calvert, a Liverpudlian who moved to Blackpool, a shock but not; perhaps a surprise. By breakfast time this morning two and a half thousand people on facebook, with a lot of righteous anger, and not so much possession of the facts had decided to start a facebook group (some even got this name texted to their phones.) making the claim that he was none other than the secret new identity for Jon Venables who is currently in prison, and that he has received threats, obviously by people so stupid that they can't see that a man who isn't in jail at the moment, can't really be a man who is in jail at the present time. You know little technicalities like that. This has happened before; five years ago. He was mistaken for Venables, largely because of two things, he's a Scouser who moved away from Liverpool, and he spent 4 months in the clink for fraud (you know, just like murder) Inevitably the threats and insinuations duly arrived, and presumably died down. I assume his name resurfaced after people have googled Venables for his whereabouts, seen this article and Calverts name, put 2 and 2 together, and come up with the letter Z. Now he has to relive the entire ordeal over again. He is said to be too afraid to leave his house, and fears for his wife and kids, and to be honest, who can really blame him? Even more worryingly he says he has received messages threatening to get him out by any means. I must emphasise that his tormentors are apparently so dense, that they are trying to hound a man they think is Venables inside of a Fleetwood house, but who is in fucking jail for God sake !!

This doesn't really do much for the case that Venables should be outed now, or indeed ever. If some people are really acting like this, and are so fired up by this lynching mob mentality, (read the Facebook comments. They're shocking.) on the basis of so little evidence. An innocent man is now cowering in fear in his own home, when it should be self evident, even to a child, that he can't possibly be the target of their ire! I won't say this often, but I almost felt sorry for the government ministers who are trying to placate this vengeful atmosphere, and are largely not succeeding.

I also think paradoxically, it weakens the case for identifying Venables to prevent others from being misidentified for him, and falling foul of the mob. As we have seen this kind of mentality flairs up (his recall brings him back into public eye, and tabloid headlines) and tends to sort of build to a positive feedback, with the mob mentality gathering momentum. If they were outed, we would get a fair amount of coverage of them, stoking the flames, and raking it up every so often. Even the toughest law and order advocate will realise that innocent bystanders are going to get hurt (friends, relatives, neighbours,) by association, if there whereabouts were known. Although we don't know the full story of what he was recalled for, and it could be argued what about the danger they may still (if they still do) pose to others? It is still more difficult for either to be a severe danger, what with the monitoring. (the recalling however may raise questions about how they are being monitored) It is probably for the best that they slip out of the greater consciousness as much as possible, in the hope that the mob lose interest. (these things tend to run out of steam fairly quickly, after the initial source of the ire) I don't even think outing them would stop innocents being attacked. From some of the facebook comments, some of the stupider mobbers would probably attack a sardine tin with a photo of Venables stuck on it, or even footballs Tery Venables. Too little brain and a lot of rage does that.

It's easy to stoke up this kind of unthinking lynch mob atmosphere, and there are many willing to take it up. It's less easy to put the genie back in the bottle, and innocent people like the David Calverts of this world often find themselves on the wrong side of the mob, whether it's malicious gossip, shitty information or general stupidity (a bad combination if all present). As Charles MacKay wrote in his book over 150 years ago "Madness of Crowds"

"Men think in herds. It is seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover thier senses slowly, and one by one."

Still applies today.

Review. Star Trek (2009) (Spoilerish)

You know if you go to this with an open mind, and can resist scrutinizing the movie against the established franchise (which isn’t a problem if you aren’t a Trek fan, so you may be in a better position than a Trekky to judge this film.) then this is actually a really enjoyable action romp. (Or is that trek?) This is a new film from a long and established franchise that has spanned decades, was on life support for about most of Voyagers run, and eventually flat lined when Enterprises low ratings (composed of three slightly nerdy single men, an ash tray and a dog) meant Paramount wasn't going to just sign cheques away no questions asked; to anything with "Trek" in the title. It's been rebooted and repackaged for a contemporary audience, in the mold of a FX laden adventure film. It doesn’t really ponder the human condition any more than it really has too (and it doesn’t have much of that either) which could be problematic to those who may have (justified) presuppositions as to what defines the franchise. I think the scene when Spock and Kirk debate the fate of the lead baddy at the end, will be most problematic to fan consensus (after all Trek has had many different writers) on what was Gene Roddenberry's (the creator of Star Trek) take on his shows philosophy and on its greater take on the human condition.

One thing it does do well and takes from the original series, which is chosen as it is the most recognisable part of the franchise to people new to Trek, is to recreate the great characterisation of the original crew. Particular stand outs are Chris Pine as Kirk. He fortunately doesn't try to impersonate Bill Shatner in the role, but delivers us a cocky but still likable lead. Kirk in the original was a seat of the pants guy (and doesn't believe in the no win scenario like this Kirk) but this was tempered by his experience and command role, this Kirk through the events in the movie has had differing circumstances, where he has had the lifestyle of a drifter and a rebel who has been through the school of hard knocks, and perhaps because of the tough knocks he's had we sympathise with him despite him being cocky. So he doesn't come across as a swaggering, priggish cock. Zachery Quinto is also excellent as Spock, he almost feels and looks like a young Leonard Nimoy, one of the best bits of casting I've seen. He also plays the role with subtle differences to the original. This one has more trouble bottling up his human half, (and this dichotomy of his half human status is most of the human element of the show.) and tolerating a certain young future captain. His "up yours" to the Vulcan council is a great scene (especially in regard to his mum. Freud would have a field day), and this leads too some harrowing scenes between the two on the bridge. The other bridge crew each get at least a look in (unlike much of the original) Karl Urban is superb as Dr. "Bones" Mccoy, as the cynical but thoroughly decent ships medic, Zoe Saldana adds a zesty bite to her role as Uhura, and doesn't come across as just background eye candy. Simon Pegg is comedy relief as chief engineer Scotty. The scenes of Kirks birth are played well and give the film an emotional and poignant punch at the beginning of the film to drive the rest of it along. We care about these people, and what's happening to them.
The film has been designed to appeal to a wide audience not just the trekky niche. This will inevitably mean it will appeal more to the non trekky elements, than the fan base, so someone who has never seen the show can enjoy it purely on its own merits, rather than needing a framework in the context of the franchise, which is more the case for the Next Generation films. In fact you could probably drop all the Trek references , and change the names of the ship and the planets /aliens and it would still work as a film. This means that it has quite a different feel to the older films. It's not a bad feel, but for me it was most noticeable in the scenery and visuals of the films. The warehouse shots of the Enterprise engine room and the abandoned base feel grungey and industrial, which don't seem to fit into the shiny Star Trek universe to well. But besides this, for the fans, there are subtle nods to all the shows in there. The people writing it obviously have a deep respect for the 60's show, and the action scenes are as tightly paced and exciting as the best of the episodes were.

The film has only two really majorish flaws with it. The first is that the execution of the plot can sometimes be a bit dodgy, with obvious holes in logic. Apparently federation planets don't have any surface defences whatsoever to fight back against a baddy Romulan ship that just sits there. Why is this mining ship of all things like the most powerful and biggest thing ever built? Where are these guys mining at? Mordor? All sci-fi mining ships are always grotty and rusty (in space??!!) The matter that makes black holes (literally a hole. So the laws of physics must have been rebooted as well.) I mean come on! But if you take all this with a pinch of salt you should be OK. The second, and more serious flaw is the main baddy Nero. He just never gets the characterisation he deserves as main villain. Eric Bana is a great actor, he was chilling, idiosyncratic and charming as the lead in Chopper but his talents are wasted here, and we get none of these on display. Just him standing about in the gloom glaring in the middle distance at everything and everyone, and I never felt we knew him or what motivated him. The other Romulans are really only there to be baddys to get shot.

But if you take it for what it is, a well paced action film with a bit of pathos here and there. It's a well spent two hours. Whether the more dedicated trekkie can make the leap, or whether it is the right direction for trek films in general (I thought a sort of high concept, ideas driven reboot like the new Batman films would have been nice) is another matter entirely.

This isn't about Justice for James

As we have seen this week, John Venables, one of the two 10 year old boys who tortured and murdered toddler James Bulger in Liverpool in 1993, has been recalled to prison after breaking the conditions of the strict terms of his release licence. (for his entire lifetime.)

There was something tangibly ghastly about James Bulgers murder. I was 13 when he was killed on a railway line in a grim estate in Liverpool, and I remember it well. How could two kids do the things they did? Snarling adults pounding at steel mesh windows of a police Transit Van, trying to get at two 10 year old boys inside. The incendiary headlines like the "Star" offering 20 grand to "snare the bastards who slaughtered Jamie", and the Expresses "Monsters", and the infamous grainy CCTV footage of the two boys luring him to his fate. We have a strange dual standard about children in the UK. On the one hand, as a glance at any of the obituaries to dead children, whether Baby P, or yet another hit and run victim, will show -there's talk of angels in heaven, and innocent tots full of love. But then we are castigated by Time magazine for deliberately alienating and fearing our bling crusted, and hoodie wearing teenagers. It is perhaps not too much of a stretch to say that some of the visceral hatred directed towards them was because they shone a dark and shattered mirror in the publics face about something we don't want to see. Pre teen childhood violence. It lead to much soul searching. How do we square that two boys brutally killed a toddler in such a hideous manner, with the circle of the presumption of childhood innocence, and how they could be judged by adult standard. It created a debate on criminality that has never been adequately settled, and still stirs up strong emotions even today, as we have seen.

As the two are subject to lifelong anonymity orders (including new identities) that the press have to (reluctantly as we'll see.) legally abide by, the details of what he has been recalled for are vague, but it seems that if the Sunday Mirror is to be believed, that it may pertain to suspicion of child porn. From what dribs and drabs the press are legally allowed to disclose about Venables, it seems that release has been mentally tough for him, with reports that he uses alcohol and drugs and has, on more than one occasion - blurted out his real identity to strangers. (and even possibly inmates at where he is being held.) The tabloids are of course going to town on him being banged up again. It is in their eyes a vindication of their theories that the pair are monsters beyond the pale of all human redemption, and that if they had been allowed to publish their whereabouts (this theme is recurrent in editorials, and loaded statements in articles on the case) this would not have happened. The government are coming under fire from both the tabloids and emotionally charged interviews with James parents who believe that their sons killers got off too lightly in the first place anyway, and want what alleged terms Venables was recalled for made public, and even Venables new identity to be made known if and when he stands trial. Gordon Brown and Jack Straw have put out rather tenuous statements about how they sympathise with "public opinion" on the issue but are unwilling to interfere with the workings of the legal system. Jack Straw was quoted as:

"I said on Wednesday that I was unable to give further details of the reasons for Jon Venables' return to custody, because it was not in the public interest to do so.
That view was shared by the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

We all feared that a premature disclosure of information would undermine the integrity of the criminal justice process, including the investigation and potential prosecution of individual(s).

Our motivation throughout has been solely to ensure that some extremely serious allegations are properly investigated and that justice is done. No-one in this country would want anything other. That is what the authorities remain determined to do."

Now leaving aside the fact that calling for the details (and by extension the identity of the man himself) of the terms of the breach of licence he is only suspected of doing is a complete legal minefield of thorny issues. It would also likely jeopardise any proceedings that could be subsequently brought against him, a judge could easily say that a jury who knew Venables was in the dock could be too easily swayed by this knowledge to come to a reasonable conclusion about this separate case, and that the verdict does not stand up to the required standard of acceptable justice. Then you have the legality of breaking an anonymity injunction. It would cause severe problems for any future proceedings against him that may be put in place. On a more personal level, revealing what has happened would make him easily identifiable to other inmates / wardens, and revealing his new identity means everyone can identify him. Now whatever your views on forgiveness of past crimes or punishment and retribution, I find it very hard to swallow that a move that would potentially lead to a vigilante lynching of a man who, although committed a dreadful crime, did so at ten years old. This kind of thing has no place in any civilised society. It would also set a dangerous precedent in legal procedures. If we want a good and humane justice system, it must be fair and applied objectively and evenly, not shook up to cater to the whims of stoked up mob mentality, which means some will be dealt with more severely in relation to others who are not as infamous

As I said before, the tabloids have always had the Bulger killers in their sights. Partly it is due the uniquely awful nature of the killing and with it the enormous amounts of public consciousness the murder resonated, and in that lies stories people want to read, and the tabloids are willing to supply. What also fuels this obsession with the pair is the press injunction that provides them anonymity. Obviously tabloids and their bombastic editors love the enormous influence and ability to make mischief whilst sitting out the consequences of the near useless PCC (I honestly think the Tweenies would do a better job running this organisation). The injunction is a block on their power and they hate that. Also they are thinking of the potential windfall in readers if their identities were allowed to be printed. Probably everyone, to varying degrees is a little curious about what became of them. Memorable murders bring in readers (that's why we all still know the name "Jack the Ripper") and have a strange interest to some people. I'd imagine a "Bulger Killers Revealed" headline would be a goldmine for a red top editor. This injunction is the only thing stopping this happening, and that is why we get comments that subtly hint at this like Carole Malone from the NOTW:

"And if now, Venables knew the public would be told of his every transgression, it might just kick him back on track. No, his identity must never be revealed because he'll be pursued by lynch mobs.
But the result of years of anonymity is he now thinks he's bulletproof, that whatever crime he commits the police will protect him. It's a privilege afforded to no other criminal - except, perversely, the very worst ones.
So what is this government's message to young thugs - the more heinous the crime you commit, the cushier life you'll have?
Nice one! At least it is if you're a child killer!

and the Mail on Sunday editorial. How they typed this with a straight face I'll never know?:

"We do not know. But the bitter irony in this case is that with myriad rumours swirling around, Venables may be being maligned in a way he may not deserve.
Forget the fact that, once again, Labour has put the rights of the criminal ahead of those of the victim and his family.
Forget the £4million that has been spent on rehabilitating Venables and Thompson - giving them new identities and a lifestyle almost certainly more comfortable than they would have enjoyed had they not killed James.
What is truly disturbing is that somebody can be jailed in Britain without the authorities having to reveal why."

The Mail has some considerable sympathy with the need for Venables' anonymity to be preserved. But equally we believe in the sacredness of open justice and that incarcerating people in secret is the first step towards the Kafkaesque world of totalitarian regimes."

Now the press claiming that they are fighting the noble fight, when they are just pursuing naked self interest is nothing new, but there is one person who I do think is being manipulated by all this, and perhaps isn't aware that she is being used as a tool to promote other agendas. That is Denise Fergus, James' mother. Now let me stress I have absolutely nothing but sympathy for her and her plight. Losing your child in the most appalling way possible, and having to relive his last moments through a lengthy trial, and then being denied the sense of catharsis at the trials conclusion, due to the unique and more morally ambiguous nature of the juvenile killers is something no one should ever endure in their lifetime. Although I don't agree with her desire to see her child's killers "outed" I can understand why she feels let down by the system. No-one can tell her that she is wrong to feel the way she feels, because almost no-one endures what she has so tragically had to bear. But sadly Mrs. Fergus is tabloid dynamite for stories like these, and editors keen for the "right" kind of soundbites, and are pounding on her door. She says all the right things (She still hates the pair, and time has not dulled that) and comes out with those hard line unanswerable rhetorical questions (what about my rights over the killers rights. I've got a life sentence, they haven't) that are make great quotes for right wing newspapers. It's hard not to feel for her, constantly being interviewed whenever a particularly salient murder makes the headline. The emotional toll it must take on her? It is sad to think that the Suns "Justice for James" e-petition (over the government not publishing the exact details of what Venables has been recalled for) may be seen as a genuine campaign to help the family of a young murder victim than what it really is, an attempt to flog a shed load of papers.

Richard Littlejohns take on Michael Foot.

I'll try to avoid posting articles on Richard Littlejohn. Trying to pin down exactly what is wrong with the articles he writes is like trying to explain why you didn't think Gigli was a good film, or subtly pointing out to Shane McGowan of the Pogues, just why he should try out those people called dentists now and then. Where, and at what logical point do you even possibly begin to start? It's frankly quite depressing to be faced with most of his articles (a black hole of bad puns, lousy skits on 70's sitcoms about gay policemen or whatever, and all the other thinly veiled prejudices and spite he doles out.) and I leave it to the guys who post on Mailwatch to do that sort of thing. I'd just end up slitting all my arteries with rusty garden shears mid way through an article, at the sheer volumes of drivel Littleprick taps out on his word processor. But as he's written about Michael Foot, like I did I thought I should comment on it.

Now as anyone who knows the name Jan Moir will know, the Mail has no objections about their journos writing speculative innuendo and insinuation about the target of their article, irrespective of if they are still warm in the morgue, and this one is no better (I mean they didn't pull any punches for a former boy band member, what hope did a former Labour leader have?) Michael Foot. Good Old Footy. No dangerous deluded hypocrite. In it we learn that the late party leader was a draft dodger during WW2; that he was a Soviet stooge, oh and he wore a donkey jacket at the cenotaph (sigh). Well I did a bit of research into "Footys" background here and here. It's a wonderful research tool, is t'internet, and don't think I'm pointing this out to lazy columnists. So lets have a look at Dickys claims.

FOOT WAS A BATTLE DODGER.

Littlejohn says Foot all but shirked fighting in the second world war, (fine line between conscientious objector and cowardice) to lap it up in comfort in smart Islington society. Well it does seem he was rejected for military service due to asthma problems. It also is unfair that Littlejohn said that he didn't contribute to the war effort. He wrote a popular book condemning appeasement. He was editor of the Evening Standard during much of the war, a protected position, and considered necessary for the domestic war effort. (Londons largest local newspaper) and was considered one of the most able public morale boosting editors. His pieces outlined the need to defeat Hitler, and the strength and value of British democracy against Nazi tyranny. Now it's a "how long is a piece of string" argument what is considered "doing your bit" in war time. But I think that being an editor strongly supporting the need to act against Hitler was a pretty important responsibility in that war. He also claims Foot let others do the fighting against Francos forces in the Spanish civil war, (he did not fight himself.) but he ignores the fact that Foot did visited dissidents to the Franco regime (I'm sure he'd have loved a left wing critic of his regime chewing the fat with his enemies, in his own prisons) in the 70's and was almost imprisoned for doing so. Not the actions of a cowardly person I think.

FOOT WAS A SOVIET STOOGE.
Littlejohn stops short of calling Foot an outright traitor to Britain during the Cold War. But he does claim that Foot was unaware / unwilling to comment on Stalin's crimes, and the repression the USSR committed on the Warsaw Pact countries. This doesn't seem to be the case if we read up on him. Although he was undoubtedly a socialist, and believed in some aspects of Marx's philosophy, he was vocally disappointed that the USSR was behaving dictatorially, and that a long established liberty supported British based system coupled with socialism would have avoided the bloodshed that occured under the regime. He opposed Stalins tyranny and Gulags, and was pilloried by some on the left for what he said, and condemned the tanks being sent in to Hungary in 1956. He even supported NATO.

He also wasn't an outright pacifist in the sense we would understand it, and the charge levelled by some against anti-nuke protesters. (all wars are unjust all the time.) He was passionately anti -nuke and pro CND. He did however support the action in the Falklands against the junta in Argentina. This contradiction between a hatred of war and a need to preserve democracy even by force bothered him immensely throughout his life.

THE DONKEY JACKET.
If you can't go for the big things, just resort to low rent ad hom attacks. And they say that journalism these days relies to much on dumbing down, and low level cheap sniping. I can't imagine why.

Now let me stress I'm NOT saying he should have been banned from writing it. I just think we need a bit more journalistic rigour when we are writing articles that have some pretty serious insinuations (draft dodging and being a kept creature of a hostile power) in them, towards a man who hasn't even been dead for 3 days. It's not too much to assume that Britains (reputedly) highest paid columnist should perhaps do a bit of homework (I didn't know that much about Foot until I researched for these posts) before committing to print. You know, its like good practice.

Goodbye Michael Foot.

I was saddened to hear of the death of Michael Foot at aged 97, the former Labour leader from 1980 to 1983, yesterday morning. He is often remembered as the eccentric looking, shock white unkempt haired, nutty donnish duffer looking man whose leadership of Labour, brought about one of the most crushing defeats for that party of all time. the Labour manifesto under his leadership was considered so damaging, it was referred to as the "longest suicide note in history." Then there is the incident of when he supposedly wore a donkey jacket (actually an expensive overcoat that the Queen Mother complimented him on) to lay a reef at the cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday for which he was pilloried mercilessly by the press, as an out of touch socialist buffoon. But I think to remember him for just these things is really not to do; perhaps one of the cleverest men to sit in the commons, justice.








He never really had a chance at being prime minister. Thatcher was at her most powerful -before '83, from the successful outcome of the Falklands war. Foot, even leaving this aside;- couldn't compete in the TV age, physical appearances had started to matter by this time (he looked 90, 30 years back.) He was perhaps the greatest parliamentarian of the last 35 years, possibly 40, but this was a debating style obsolete by then. It's kind of ironic that he was too good a speaker, half the population probably couldn't understand a bloody thing he was talking about. Not going to win you elections any time soon. His Methodist upbringing, alongside his extraordinary broad literary knowledge, and 19th century socialist rhetoric (his dog was even called Disraeli) just didn't have the capacity to spread his popularity to the masses.





Despite what you may have thought about his trenchant socialist views, or his staunch opposal of the nuclear deterrent, it is unarguable that he spoke with such conviction and passion about issues close to his heart. I would challenge anyone to not be moved by the various anti - nuclear speeches he made. Though he wouldn't budge on nukes, he always defended the Falklands conflict as defending the islanders from the unpleasant Galtieri junta. Almost everyone who knew him said that he was one of the nicest men in politics, and the nicest person ever to lead a political party in the UK. (self admittedly a rare virtue in politics.) Although he held a lot of responsibility for the Labour rebels splitting to form the SDP, it is testament to his character that he could manage to keep the various factions (Bennites and Healeyites) together in a hollowed out party, when it seemed that the internal fractures and the sudden loss of the liberal arm of Labour should have condemned the party to oblivion.

It is unfair then to say Michael Foot was a disaster for the Labour Party. Yes he had some iffy economic views, and looked like so old, that he could have gone to school with the Flintstones, and really had lost the election before it was even called. He was in one sense a success. Few would have been able to keep Labour, even slightly together in the early 80's but somehow Michael Foot succeeded in this and that is no small achievement. At the very least it should earn him a more suitable epitaph than "that old guy who wore a donkey jacket at the cenotaph."

Stuff about Blog Layout.

I am in the middle of tidying up and adding a bit more meat to my blog layout. Wouldn't it be nice if it would actually do the changes I want it to make, in the way I want to make them? I don't want my labels of posts at the bottom for GODS SAKE!! This blog hates me. My computer hates me. Everybody hates me.

(Which is just a rant by a frustrated and incompetent user. When in doubt. Blame on the machine, not garbage in and garbage out.)

Psychic Healer didn't see prosecution coming. (What a surprise. hmmm)

There are many things in life that I find depressing and irritating, but I have resigned myself to the knowledge that they will always be around for as long as I live. Motorway congestion, stupid adverts with meerkats and pretend opera singers, astrology, tax returns, and the fact that my wireless mouse keeps conking out, about every 7 seconds, and last, but by no means least (and handily the theme of this post, the world of psychics and alternative medicine, and their bizarre level of popularity.

Most of the time my feelings toward this kind of thing is a kind of bewildered puzzlement. I admittedly feel slightly depressed that lots of folk take stock in, and actively endorse quackery that should be self evidently be classified as "bullshit some people just made up on the fly." if anyone took more time to bother analysing the lofty claims of others with a more soberly objective eye. To see these "spiritual gurus" with their TV shows (why are they given such an easy ride for the spurious claims they make?) and the ear of magazine editors, and the well paid columns that go with that. It riles me that people are often being taken for a ride, often handing over large sums of cash to; at best, "spiritual" kooks and at worst con men guilty to a form of pseudo scientific extortion. It's depressing that people are so willingly taken in by this. That they will pay handsomely for a homeopath to give them a phial of mineral water. Science education has taken a kicking in modern Britain, this sort of stuff will flourish if you have a public who have a blotted knowledge of the discipline. But there are occasions when pseudoscience stops being irritating and can actually become harmful to the point of jeopardising lives. Like when a guy says he can cure cancer by touching people, who has fallen foul of a 1939 law which prevents people from advertising unsubstantiated treatments for the disease. Self proclaimed "visionary healer, energy worker and psychic" Adrian Pengelly faces 3 months in the clink for positive testimonials, posted by his "patients" on a website he claims not to have ever seen (some fucking psychic). He cheerfully says the contributors:

"The people on my website have done it for free, out of the goodness of their hearts."

I'm sure such kindness of spirit should be reciprocated.

"13,700 waiting for his [Pengellys] services at up to £30 a session."

Or maybe not then.

He's also been subject to a negative slot on TV consumer show "Watchdog" last September.

Now I'm sure many proponents of this kind of "healing" are going to think that Pengelly is a victim of a witch hunt by the "acolytes of orthodox medicine". But I think, No! Let the case go ahead. Lets see if his treatments would stand up to general clinical analysis. Would his case studies; or indeed, the testimonies stand up to the rigour of medical cross examination? How would his treatments fare in double blind tests? If they do, Ill be the first to say this post is out of line. If alternative healers want the "respect" accorded to "real medicine" then they should play by the scientific method.

*He makes an interesting comment that needs highlighting for what it says.

"I'm just a healer. I can do things most healers only dream about."

That may be so. But if you have medical methodology behind you, healers dreams often stop being just dreams.